Why has Federer won very little titles on clay?

M

Micheal Federer

Rookie
despite making 26 claycourt finals, he's won only 10 claycourt titles. even removing his 12 losses to Nadal, he still has 14 other finals and all Nadal's wins weren't final
I always think he could have won more.

edit: got some of the stats totally wrong. had to edit after correction from some response.
 
Last edited:
MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
nadal_roland-garros-1.jpg


Sup broski
hippie7.gif
 
kabob

kabob

Hall of Fame
He played more clay when he was younger and more prone to losing. More importantly, it's just plain his worst surface. His game isn't built around high topspin back-and-forth grinding. His attacking play is blunted by the slowness of the surface.
 
BeatlesFan

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Epic fail, OP. Any player who has won RG has done something that 99.9% of professional tennis players never have. Roger Federer is a superb clay court player.

And the answer to why Fed didn't win "more" clay titles is simple: the presence of Nadal. Had there been no clay GOAT in Roger's playing days, he would easily be considered co-clay GOAT with Borg. He would have won 5 FO's!
 
tenisdecente

tenisdecente

Hall of Fame
I have to say that even if that was not in a final, my countryman Horna drubbing Federer in straights at RG 2003 was incredible. What a waste, since he could have gone deeper but he lost next round! Classic Lucho
 
tenisdecente

tenisdecente

Hall of Fame
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Because he is the most successful player of all. Sounds pretty childish to me when a fan loudly complains about some of his losses and claims he had the most heartbreaking ones after the career he has had. No matter how much he achieves some people will never be content with it.
Click to expand...

They are as greedy as the Swiss :D
 
-NN-

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Because he is the most successful player of all. Sounds pretty childish to me when a fan loudly complains about some of his losses and claims he had the most heartbreaking ones after the career he has had. No matter how much he achieves some people will never be content with it.
Click to expand...

I just don't think the argument makes sense. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have won more. I might as well complain the same way about Nole fans given that the gap between him and the nearly and Slamless men of the tour is far greater than it is between himself and Federer. I'll come to my conclusions on a case by case basis without worrying about these things. Federer isn't exempt from such considerations just because he's won the most, just like it's reasonable for Michael Schumacher fans to think that if he'd have stayed on he might have added the 2007 and 2008 WDCs to his name. I think your line of reasoning is a bit childish and dare I say bitter. We can discuss these things without being precious or unfair, in fact we can very reasonably wonder what players might have achieved in different circumstances. What if Djokovic had discovered his allergy problems etc. much sooner? Maybe he left an awful lot of achievements on the table. Of course, we'll never know.
 
K

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
As other have stated - wrong info.

He's been pretty successful on the surface over. 1 RG with 4 additional finals. 6 clay masters, 4 at Hamburg, 2 at Madrid (1 being on blue clay). Multiple other clay masters finals, SF, RG SFs etc and a handful of small clay titles to go with that.

Top 10 by achievements on the dirt despite it being his worst surface. As beatlesfan said co-GOAT on clay with no Nadal there which is pretty impressive.
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
-NN- said:
I just don't think the argument makes sense. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have won more. I might as well complain the same way about Nole fans given that the gap between him and the nearly and Slamless men of the tour is far greater than it is between himself and Federer. I'll come to my conclusions on a case by case basis without worrying about these things. Federer isn't exempt from such considerations just because he's won the most, just like it's reasonable for Michael Schumacher fans to think that if he'd have stayed on he might have added the 2007 and 2008 WDCs to his name. I think your line of reasoning is a bit childish and dare I say bitter. We can discuss these things without being precious or unfair, in fact we can very reasonably wonder what players might have achieved in different circumstances. What if Djokovic had discovered his allergy problems etc. much sooner? Maybe he left an awful lot of achievements on the table. Of course, we'll never know.
Click to expand...
:D

I didn't say he couldn't have won more, obviously he could have. So many different outcomes could have happened in any sport. But in this case OP said that Federer should have won more titles on clay. Why? You will find some other fans say how he should have won some particular Slam tournament that he lost. Same goes for fans of other greats of this and other sports. Why should have they won some match that they ended up losing? This kind of focus on players' missed opportunities is something I don't understand and honestly I won't try to understand.
 
-NN-

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
:D

I didn't say he couldn't have won more, obviously he could have. So many different outcomes could have happened in any sport. But in this case OP said that Federer should have won more titles on clay. Why? You will find some other fans say how he should have won some particular Slam tournament that he lost. Same goes for fans of other greats of this and other sports. Why should have they won some match that they ended up losing? This kind of focus on players' missed opportunities is something I don't understand and honestly I won't be trying to understand.
Click to expand...

Could, should, either way it doesn't matter. It can be argued for any player of any success level, rightly or wrongly. Federer having won the most doesn't have to get in the way of attempts at such judgments of whether he could or should do anything, so rather than specify Federer and/or his fanbase, just attack the sheer notion full stop as it applies to any player.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Fedeonic said:
Those two matches that Federer by ranking and pedigree should have won.
Click to expand...

Novak was a top 10 player at the time, so was Wawrinka, obviously. 2003erer lost in the first round of RG, remember, still inconsistent. 2014erer was already too old, and Wawr outlasted him, although it's annoying how close Fed was yet let it slip.
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
-NN- said:
Could, should, either way it doesn't matter. It can be argued for any player of any success level, rightly or wrongly. Federer having won the most doesn't have to get in the way of attempts at such judgments of whether he could or should do anything, so rather than specify Federer and/or his fanbase, just attack the sheer notion full stop as it applies to any player.
Click to expand...
Not my fault that Federer is the subject of this thread. I said later that pretty much the same applies to other players, shoulds don't matter, it is what it is. But to me a Federer fan will come across as a whiny little b1tch, more than any other, when he or she focuses on Fed's losses and says those should have been wins, because that person had the most moments to be happy about.
 
-NN-

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Not my fault that Federer is the subject of this thread. I said later that pretty much the same applies to other players, shoulds don't matter, it is what it is. But to me a Federer fan will come across as a whiny little b1tch, more than any other, when he or she focuses on Fed's losses and says those should have been wins, because that person had the most moments to be happy about.
Click to expand...

By the same token, they'll also have had more championship near misses to be sad about to go along with those championship wins.

I agree that woulda shoulda coulda doesn't matter though. It is what it is.

So be it AKA that is all.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Not my fault that Federer is the subject of this thread. I said later that pretty much the same applies to other players, shoulds don't matter, it is what it is. But to me a Federer fan will come across as a whiny little b1tch, more than any other, when he or she focuses on Fed's losses and says those should have been wins, because that person had the most moments to be happy about.
Click to expand...

Does it have to be about fans' enjoyment? I'd rather see that as mourning the failures on the "Quest For Perfection"(tm). It's amusing to contemplate how the man could've been even perfecterer. Although that would've grown fairly boring, probably.
 
guitarra

guitarra

Professional
There is only one reason: he had to battle the best clay court player ever - Rafael Nadal. If not for Rafa, Roger would now sit on 5 or 6 French Open titles.
 
W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Micheal Federer said:
despite making 26 claycourt finals, he's won only 10 claycourt titles. even removing his 12 losses to Nadal, he still has 14 other finals and all Nadal's wins weren't final
I always think he could have won more.
.
Click to expand...

Sans Nadal - He's 9-4 in clay finals.

Its fair enough - I think you got your first premise wrong.

Interestingly, Djokovic is 8-3 sans Nadal (and 13-9 with)
 
every7

every7

Hall of Fame
Federer has won quite a few clay titles, even though most of his career has overlapped with Nadal who went undefeated on the surface for a long time and is undoubtedly one of the greatest ever (with the record to prove it) on clay.

For a good while in his career he was the second best player in the world on clay, and when the opportunity arrived, Federer was often there to win big on this surface

Also has won F.O., beating a player who was on fire in the final.

He has done well on the surface. This is a strange thread imo.
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
BeatlesFan said:
Epic fail, OP. Any player who has won RG has done something that 99.9% of professional tennis players never have. Roger Federer is a superb clay court player.

And the answer to why Fed didn't win "more" clay titles is simple: the presence of Nadal. Had there been no clay GOAT in Roger's playing days, he would easily be considered co-clay GOAT with Borg. He would have won 5 FO's!
Click to expand...

Federers task was to figure out Nadal, but he he did not.
 
-NN-

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
RF-18 said:
Federers task was to figure out Nadal, but he he did not.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how dominant Nadal has been against his main rivals in the Slams. He owns Federer and he owns Djokovic almost as much. I guess these guys just couldn't figure Nadal out in the bigger picture. Fred does have those 18 Majors though which is sexi.
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
vanioMan said:
Nobody could've figure how to consistently beat Nadal on clay between 2005 and 2012 because his level was godlike, despite the occasional defeats he suffered.

Sorry to tell you that, mate.
Click to expand...

Federer is one of the greatest talents tennis has seen so when they were going at it Federers task was to stop him at some point, everybody expected it when they were playing those finals at RG. Federer is an excellent clay courter aswell, one of the best for sure when you factor in level. But Nadal was unstoppable.
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
-NN- said:
It's amazing how dominant Nadal has been against his main rivals in the Slams. He owns Federer and he owns Djokovic almost as much. I guess these guys just couldn't figure Nadal out in the bigger picture. Fred does have those 18 Majors though which is sexi.
Click to expand...

It is. He was just too good on clay, although Djokovic had his opportunities before the win in 2015. I'm talking specifically about the 2013 semis where Djokovic was in position to win the match but was unlucky.
 
-NN-

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
RF-18 said:
It is. He was just too good on clay, although Djokovic had his opportunities before the win in 2015. I'm talking specifically about the 2013 semis where Djokovic was in position to win the match but was unlucky.
Click to expand...

How was Djokovic unlucky in that match? I don't really recall. Were there some mucked up line-calls or umpire overrules?
 
BGod

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Federer definitely had a choker's mentality for a long while with Nadal. It's not as if he was getting drubbed in all meetings with him, he'd just find a way to lose:

4 Sets (lost a tiebreak)
3 Set Masters
3 Set Masters
4 Sets
4 Sets (lost a tiebreak)
5 Sets (lost 2 tiebreaks)
4 Sets (lost a tiebreak)
4 Sets

That's 8 clay matches lost to Nadal he could have won.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
-NN- said:
You're probably trolling, but how is that unlucky? Or are you just saying this is the excuse ND-12 will use.
Click to expand...
Probably what he will use.

But falling on the net was really bad luck as I feel Djokovic would have held serve otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JennyS
Federer clay results vs Nadal's summer/fall hardcourt results
Replies
23
Views
1K
tudwell
T
Eragon
Federer on Clay
2 3
Replies
131
Views
14K
FrontHeadlock
F
P
Nadal's dominance on Clay being counted against him
Replies
34
Views
3K
Chillaxer
C
nolefam_2024
Nadal has slowed down in every single criteria a lot
Replies
37
Views
962
ALCARAZWON
A
M
Updated - Top 3 - Who Has Won Most Titles at 14 Biggest Tournaments in Tennis
2
Replies
64
Views
2K
AndyM
A
Top